OK, that makes sense. As I said, I thought MAXC was a Nova. So, Stanford used a direct interface to the 10 and the CMU, DEC and MIT ones used an 11/20 I don't know how many others were stood up or how. On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:00 PM Bruce Baumgart wrote: > Lars et al > - > Lynn Quam is credited with building the XGP hardware interface to the SAIL > PDP-6. > > > A few lines from > Version #1 of Quam’s file RESUME[DOC,PDQ] say > > < quote > > > Nov. 1972 to > Feb. 1973\jFull-time research associate in computer science. > Received a grant from the NASA Viking Mission thru > Cornell University for the analysis of candidate landing > sites for the Viking mission.\. > > \jDesign and debugging of an interface between a PDP-10 (PDP-6) > and and a Xerox Graphics Printer (XGP).\. > > < Unquote /> > > Prior to the Stanford interface, > Quam built a Nova to XGP interface at Xerox Parc > As a part time employee while also working at SAIL. > - > Bruce > > > > p.s. Lynn Quam’s log in code is PDQ > > > On 31 Jul 2020, at 12:38 PM, Lars Brinkhoff wrote: > > Clem Cole wrote: > > Anyway, I'm pretty sure the [XGP] copies at Stanford (Jan '73), and > MIT (was the 3rd in the series and a little later) also used 11/20s or > maybe 11/15's which was the OEM version of the 20 as it was March '72 > when the CMU XGP was first stood up. > > > Thank you. That's one more "vote" in favour of 11/20. In which case > the TV-11 ought to be an 11/10 which was our original guess. I don't > think it matters to the software; it should run just as well on either > model. > > I have seen MIT files which describe the Stanford hardware, so it seems > their inspiration came from there. The earliest timestamp is from > February 1973. > > I got the impression the Stanford XGP had a PDP-6/10 IO bus interface > rather than going through a PDP-11. I'm CC'ing Bruce Baumgart. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: